3 ms·

Answer is pretty obvious: One is a computer program, literally designed to pilfer copyrighted works, the other is a human being.

function_seven 4y ago
If you smuggle "pilfer" into the description of AI, then in that case it's "obvious". But the comparison could just as easily be written, "One is a computer program, literally designed to learn from copyrighted works, the other is a human being that learns from copyrighted works" If ChatGPT is parroting entire paragraphs of copyrighted work in its answers, then "pilfer" is probably the right word. Or maybe "plagiarize". But if it's training on the information gleaned from the work, and using that training to synthesize the answers, isn't that a lot more like how a learned person applies their knowledge? I haven't yet made up my mind completely on how IP should interact with AI. I see good arguments for and against. But the answer is far from obvious!
mindcrime 4y ago
Why is it "pilfering" when the computer program does it, but "learning" when a human does it?
- exabrial 4y ago
  Because those two things are not even equivalent. A human can reason, make decisions, act in best interest, judge context of a situation, apply it to new scenarios, judge emotion, and create a new derivative work. The computer program is literally taking someones work and adding fancy way to search through the other person's work, without adding any value. We need to stop fantasizing these fancy toys are actually any sort of intelligence.
  - mindcrime 4y ago
    We need to stop fantasizing these fancy toys are actually any sort of intelligence. That strikes me as a rather extraordinary claim. It seems obvious to me that contemporary AI's are "some" sort of intelligence, albeit with open questions around "what kind of intelligence?" and "how intelligent are they?".
  - onetokeoverthe 4y ago
    [dead]
- genocidicbunny 4y ago
  Because we say so? We get to define the rules here, and there's no imperative to treat the two as the same thing.
dzhiurgis 4y ago
So we can paint ourselves into corner with legislation and lawyers and prevent "AI" progress or have a constitutional referendum to decide if it's fair or not fair use.

function_seven 4y ago

If you smuggle "pilfer" into the description of AI, then in that case it's "obvious". But the comparison could just as easily be written, "One is a computer program, literally designed to learn from copyrighted works, the other is a human being that learns from copyrighted works" If ChatGPT is parroting entire paragraphs of copyrighted work in its answers, then "pilfer" is probably the right word. Or maybe "plagiarize". But if it's training on the information gleaned from the work, and using that training to synthesize the answers, isn't that a lot more like how a learned person applies their knowledge? I haven't yet made up my mind completely on how IP should interact with AI. I see good arguments for and against. But the answer is far from obvious!

mindcrime 4y ago

Why is it "pilfering" when the computer program does it, but "learning" when a human does it?

exabrial 4y ago
Because those two things are not even equivalent. A human can reason, make decisions, act in best interest, judge context of a situation, apply it to new scenarios, judge emotion, and create a new derivative work. The computer program is literally taking someones work and adding fancy way to search through the other person's work, without adding any value. We need to stop fantasizing these fancy toys are actually any sort of intelligence.
- mindcrime 4y ago
  We need to stop fantasizing these fancy toys are actually any sort of intelligence. That strikes me as a rather extraordinary claim. It seems obvious to me that contemporary AI's are "some" sort of intelligence, albeit with open questions around "what kind of intelligence?" and "how intelligent are they?".
- onetokeoverthe 4y ago
  [dead]
genocidicbunny 4y ago
Because we say so? We get to define the rules here, and there's no imperative to treat the two as the same thing.

dzhiurgis 4y ago

So we can paint ourselves into corner with legislation and lawyers and prevent "AI" progress or have a constitutional referendum to decide if it's fair or not fair use.